Do Creative People Have More Sex Partners?
One study of 425 men and women found that creative people had more sexual partners than non-creative people. The study done in New Zealand reported that the average number of partners for professional artists and poets was seven. Non-creative people had three partners.
One of the authors of the study, Dr. Nettle, said, "Creative people are often considered to be attractive and get lots of attention as a result. It could also be that very creative types lead a Bohemian lifestyle and tend to act on more sexual impulses and opportunities, often purely for experience's sake, than the average person would. Moreover, it's common to find that this sexual behavior is tolerated in creative people. Partners, even long-term ones, are less likely to expect loyalty and fidelity from them."
This set of findings supports a theory offered by evolutionist Geoffrey Miller, in his book "The Mating Mind" (2001), that artistic ability may have evolved as a form of human sexual display. He believed that artistic men were more likely to have multiple sexual partners than women. Yet Dr. Nettle's study (conducted with Helen Keenoo of the Open University) found no differences between men and women.
I think that there are many more facets to sexuality than one particular trait -- such as professional level artistic talent. For example, if we were to base a projection on stereotypes alone, professional athletes or actors might also be expected to have a higher number of sexual partners. Clergy members might also be expected to have fewer partners.
There's a risk when conducting a study about sexuality -- whether the questions asked and the answers received reasonably lead to the apparent conclusions. And, there's one more risk -- whether the sample of the study has provided reliable answers in the first place. People routinely lie about their sexuality in many of life's settings. There's no reason to think that lying would not also occur in the course of a research project.
That's why I am always a bit hesitant to rely heavily on the newest and latest sex study.
Update: The phrase referring to Catholic priests has been removed, with apologies for any offense caused to readers. - WebMD Blog Administrator
Related Topics:
Technorati Tags: sexuality, creativity, Daniel Nettle, Geoffrey Miller
One of the authors of the study, Dr. Nettle, said, "Creative people are often considered to be attractive and get lots of attention as a result. It could also be that very creative types lead a Bohemian lifestyle and tend to act on more sexual impulses and opportunities, often purely for experience's sake, than the average person would. Moreover, it's common to find that this sexual behavior is tolerated in creative people. Partners, even long-term ones, are less likely to expect loyalty and fidelity from them."
This set of findings supports a theory offered by evolutionist Geoffrey Miller, in his book "The Mating Mind" (2001), that artistic ability may have evolved as a form of human sexual display. He believed that artistic men were more likely to have multiple sexual partners than women. Yet Dr. Nettle's study (conducted with Helen Keenoo of the Open University) found no differences between men and women.
I think that there are many more facets to sexuality than one particular trait -- such as professional level artistic talent. For example, if we were to base a projection on stereotypes alone, professional athletes or actors might also be expected to have a higher number of sexual partners. Clergy members might also be expected to have fewer partners.
There's a risk when conducting a study about sexuality -- whether the questions asked and the answers received reasonably lead to the apparent conclusions. And, there's one more risk -- whether the sample of the study has provided reliable answers in the first place. People routinely lie about their sexuality in many of life's settings. There's no reason to think that lying would not also occur in the course of a research project.
That's why I am always a bit hesitant to rely heavily on the newest and latest sex study.
Update: The phrase referring to Catholic priests has been removed, with apologies for any offense caused to readers. - WebMD Blog Administrator
Related Topics:
Technorati Tags: sexuality, creativity, Daniel Nettle, Geoffrey Miller
48 Comments:
Nothing like bashing Catholic Priests. Talk about sterotyping. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I think the comment about Catholic Priests is really unprofessional. I thought you were providing some good information until I read that. I was really taken aback, stunned, shocked!!!! I work in a free, confidential, STD clinic. This is a place when people can privately discuss sexual risks, concerns, behaviors. We over 5000 people a year from ALL walks of life and guess what--> No priests lately... GET REAL and provide NON-BIASED information!!!
Re creativity and sexuality, when you mention 7 partners,do you mean 7 long term relationships or just 7 total partners. If it's 7 total, that seems to be an awfully low number which makes me worry about myself. :o)
I'm pretty sure the author was not bashing the Catholic priests. They were not including them in the study, as traditionally, they are not supposed to have ANY sexual partners and it would skew the results.
I think the comment about Catholic Priests is really hilarious~! Funny always, always outweighs taken aback, stunned, or shocked. Keep up the good work.
What an flip, distracting aside about Catholic priests. It destroys any credibility that may have accrued to the author. An editor was needed here.
I too think that seven isn't a high enough number -- unless you mean relatively longterm dating or partnering relationships.
FWIW, I thought your comment on priests was logical and appropriate. They take vows of celibacy -- they're the only element of society to do that (priests and nuns), yet there have been thousands of boys and girls abused by supposedly avowed celibate priests.
I am not a Catholic. I too, found the cheap shot on Catholic priests to be unprofessional. Would the author take the same shot at a Moslem Cleric? Doubt it. Save your personal agendas for the op-ed page and try to stick to the facts here.
I don't understand why some people get sooo offended by the comment on the catholic priests. Either they are priests or nuns and feel offended, or have not watched news in the last 100 years. Get real people!!!
It's because the issue of pedophiles among Catholic priests IS so important that it deserves more than a snarky cheapshot unrelated to the main point of the article. The comment trivialized both the issue and the author herself.
It doesn't surprise me that creative people would have more sexual partners. I would think most creative people tend to more open minded and probably don't have the same sexual hang-ups of your average non-creative ,whatever the heck that means. I don't believe that the number of sexual partners and sexual infidelity necessarily tie together.
I am more surprised that seven is considered a high number. I know lots of people who aren't remotely creative that have slept with more than three times that number. And I agree that the Catholic Priest comment was a little out of line in this context.
Not only was it below the belt about Catholic priests, it was also distracting. It diminished the professional credibility of the artical.
The pop at Catholic Priests was right on. The posters who complained should hold the Catholic Church responsible (and also get a life about the con they've fallen for).
I'm concerned about the word 'promiscuous'...kind of a loaded word...what counts as 'promiscuous', anyway?
And what's wrong with enjoying sex with a variety of partners?
it is typical of people to react hostilly to remarks like that. it was an ambiguous comment and the "stunned" crowd naturally assumed it was about the boy boinking proclivity that this article was talking about. please, it's the afa that's ruining this country, oppress the natural or any creative processes. albert einstein said, "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
enuff....pher
Darn it -- with all the postings on this subject, I regret I got in too late to read what all the fuss was about. Must have been a real zinger to get people that excited when the article seemed interesting and not at all related to or bashing Catholics. While I have no idea what the specific "offending" remark was, I find that, in general, people are getting way too touchy, so would only urge those who were offended or shocked to get thicker skin. And I would say the same thing if it were about Muslim clerics, Jewish rabbis, Protestant ministers, or any type of spiritual, moral and/or behavioral counselors who offer others help. No group should be so sacrosanct as to be beyond criticism or humor -- even ridicule should not be off limits, as long as the commentor is ready to be challenged on, and willing to defend, the comment. And what is with all of the "anonymous" credits? Doesn't anyone stand up and take credit for their comments anymore?
Well it seems that the author is correct; I was in a Heavy Metal Hairband in the 80's-we were opening for main acts and pretty succesful.(I must remain anonymous for personal resons) I had near 5 or six different partners at least every week from the age of 18-30. I was on the road and on a tour bus most of my 20's. I have since settled down-BUT as a teenager-being also an Artist and a Writer-I did notice that being the center of atttention did make a difference as opposed to the wallflower or the introverted guys around me. Even in college (Although brief) I seemed to give off the BAD BOY longhaired Rockstar image and the women were attracted to the lifestyle. But having a meaningful one on one relationship eluded me until I was 42! So I think that even artistic and creative persons can slow it down and commit. Although it is a struggle for me at times I remind myself that there is something more important here than reckless conquest. Does my wife know all the details of my past? No. It would not serve me to disclose what my lifestyle was then. So all in all I think that this was a perfect study in human behavior and if you polled a larger number of creative persons you'd be shocked at how that number seven is in my opinon low.
the sentence said 'fewer' partners - as in obeying the code of celibacy. read, people.
Can't believe how sensitive people have become. I too did not see the reference to Catholic Priests (it was deleted before I got here), but surmise it was a comment meant to eliminate them from the survey for obvious reasons. I really can't believe the author chose (based on the negative comments) to take the reference out. There are far too many people trying far too hard to stay between the lines of political correctness. Get real man, and get a life.
I am a 42 yr. old humor writer, and had many lovers (I am a single mother). I always felt more free somehow to experiment, but I have to add I am bipolar, which may add to the equasion. I felt guilty a little too, thats catholocisms fault! But not guilty enough to stop, so I guess I agree with the general consensus of your article.
In regards to pedophelia, we all discount people. How many plumbers are pedophiles ? It is our societal taboo to touch children, not just for priests. We need to work to prtoect kids, not type away our feelings.
You have to understand that humans' biggest sex organ is the brain. Its not just artists or poets are promiscuous. People with the greatest imaginations who aren't inhibited by social constraints seem to be more promiscuous. Creativity and imagination are key to sexual drive and there is evidence that intelligence plays a major role. I have read Mensa publications that dealt with this issue and it seems that very intelligent people tend to conquer whatever their immediate goal is and then move on to the next challenge that presents itself. This applies to jobs and hobbies as well as relationships. Lots of factors come into play but with all other parts of the equation being equal, imagination is the prime factor behind creativity and sexual desire.
Athletes and artists have sex with more partners and the clergy fewer than the average "non-creative" person (paraphrased)...She's just trying to make a distinction that would be obvious to her audience people. Give her a break. Everyone is so concerned with what is PC nowadays. Why not face reality and move on!
Now getting to the real meat of the article. It is interesting and somewhat makes sense -- actually, not all that surprising really. Why has artistic freedom been condemned so much over the centuries and still continues through today in some respects? Why is the American culture so uptight over a nude portrait or the like versus other cultures? Is it because we're afraid of thinking of ourselves as sexual beings? What is so wrong with that? It doesn't make us immoral or animals. It's nature.
I am incredulous that any survey would find a number as low as 7 partners. Over a lifetime? I don't believe it. In my dorm in college the super-promiscuous girls went to bed with 1-2 different guys most weekends: that would total 36-72 guys per 9-month school year (and who knows what they did over summer vacation!)which means up to 144-288 guys per year. The "conservative" girls had 2 boyfriends a year for a total of 8 during college.
Girls and boys...men and women, doctors and nurses, managers and clerks...all are doing it. All numbers are on the calculator. It is what you do to them and ???Americans (maybe) are obsessed with calculations and their inferences more than the act of sex itself. And what if promiscuous people are more creative than vice versa?
Creative people by definition value novelty... and usually have an engaging and energetic style...thereby generating attraction...more attraction, more connections...QED
Aside from Catholic Priests and Nuns, whom I don't think qualify for a normal sex study, I believe creative people are more sexual. I disagree that they may average 7 partners as opposed to 3. I have more than 7. One would have to do an actual survey to get an accurate average. Think maybe the writer could set this up for us creative and non-creative individuals???
I think the researchers and you have a very narrow definition of creative people. There are just as many creative people in medicine, engineering, and a host of other fields. The possibility that it may be the lifestyles artists and poets choose live skewed the data toward them (the researhers recognized this). Drawing inferences that's not supported by the data should not be represented as fact.
I disagree with the findings of this study. I know MANY guys who haven't a lick of creativity that have had high numbers of sexual partners, and a number of creative people who haven't. What I think is more likely is that there are certain personality traits that some creative people possess, along with guys that are natuarlly aggressive (such as being very forward and exhibitionistic) that might lead one to have more relationships.
Also, certain creative people (performers, painters, filmmakers) by nature of their pursuits meet with people who are receptive or even awed by their creativity which makes them more easily seduced.
I agree to an extent about the article. I have found out that as a former dancer that creative people have more sex partners. From the ages of 17-20 i had many partners but not until being in a serious relatinship that I found out that being sexual with one or more partners helped b/c i learned to be open minded and try new things when the one i'm with knows only about the 'basics'. FYI - The catholic priests cooment to me is not bashing or sterotyping at all!!
the older I get, the longer I'm married...seems the more partners I want to have
now that`s funny!
Are we all forgetting the study was done in New Zealand? 7+ partners for the 425 people surveyed may be all there is in the available population, not counting sheep. Lets do this survey in the US, Japan or the UK and I bet you'd find the creative people there have racked up some real numbers.
I notice that when I tell or let people know that I am a photographer, people (men) seem to react to me in a very different way then when I say I am an early childhood teacher.
I am a creative and a teacher of children so I confuse people at times. I had a very talented and known artist make fun of me and laugh saying that I must be kidding, that no one with my talent and looks could not be sleeping around.
Well, some of us creative types are still thinking with both sides of our brain not just the creative side. I have to control my creative urges sometimes to be respectful of each situation, but the bottom line is that it is very easy for creatives to explore that side that wants to include many partners
Interesting comments and the article was great! Everyone seems to be into this whole deal of saying 'youre taking a shot at so and so' I hate that kind of BS. I didnt see it as biased at all.
Anyway I have had a variety of different partners over the years and I enjoyed it but I its nice to settle down too. The one night stand thing isnt all its cracked up to be.
To all of you who said that it wasn't bashing Catholic Priests or wasn't sterotyping, did you see the original post? Web MD took out the line about Catholic Priests. They also changed the paragraph AND inserted the word clergy. They knew it wasn't approriate!
What can I say???? Priests have sex on the sly and I am an artist.
As for the comments from those offended by the priest comments: unfortunately there is nothing harsher nor truer (no surprise) than the truth itself. A statement is only as truly offensive as the lie it is based on. The truth hurts, but to sugarcoat it is a disservice to all and lacking in maturity and ownership.
Additionally, the fact of the matter is that we, as relational beings, were meant to be that intensely intimate with only one person. Perhaps this seems unreasonable at first, but read through the other posts--may statements are supported by opinions of others voiced here.
Bohemia is a historical region in central Europe. To paint Bohemians as more sexually active is an ethnic slur.
The implication that creativity is responsible for the number of sex partners one has, is quite amusing. C S Lewis, D H Lawrence, Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, among others have written brilliantly on the topic of sexuality. Sexuality is merely an instinct like any other. So the ability to have several sexual partners is no achievement. It is really a question of how much opportunity one has (very often virtue is merely lack of opportunity!) free reign each person can give to their sexual urges and still be accepted by the moral standards of the society in which they live. So the environment of a creative person may be more tolerant with free expression of sexuality. Most people live under constraints from society in which they live which does not look favourably at human beings expressing sexuality like an uncontrolled instinct. Yes morality, the unpopular word, keeps many sexual adventures in check. Married partners are expected to remain faithful, although I'm sure if it were possible to have open marriages with no negative consequences, many more partners would be openly promiscuous. According to Fromm, the lower down the evolutionary scale one is, mating is less and less differentiated, which gives a completely different twist to the correlation between creativity and multiple sex partners. When sex does not submit to any higer values, it becomes more about release of sexual urges and mating of bodies rather than any deeper connection. A Buddhist would call it using the body of the other like a toilet. What exactly is creative about that? But control of the sexual instinct is all about the submitting the sexual instinct to higher values. And there is the inevitable role of the free will in every human activity. According to D H Lawrence lower needs in man pushes him to promiscuity and higher needs inspires him to remain faithful. In spiritual disciplines learning sexual self control is considered vitally important, in order that human beings may rise above their lower needs to reach higher levels of consciousness. Celibacy for life is not for everyone of course. But sexual self control is definitely not considered a lack of creativity.
Where exactly does the sexual expression of the creative fit?
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
I saw the summary of the original survey, and if memory serves, many of the people were older than a lot of posters here in the United States. Further, the comment also was made correctly pointing out that the survey was in New Zealand. In addition, people often lie about the number of sexual partners when asked--why not in a sexual survey?
Addendum:
In case I unwittingly created the impression that I'm of the opinion lifelong celibacy is required to reach higher levels of consciousness, I decided to clarify my position with an additional post. I was only trying to point out the logic behind celibacy being consciously chosen by some - monks and nuns. For many remaining faithful to one partner might seem as difficult as lifetime celibacy!
The reasoning one needs to make the act of remaining faithful easier, is to be convinced that we seek the one in the many when there is no love, and it is possible to find the many in the one when there is love. We do not need more than one sexual partner if we are not looking to fulfil some false ego need through sex.
I'm fully convinced that sex is sacred and is created by God not just for procreation but also for pleasure, as a physical expression of love between a man and woman. Sex as a physical expression of love within a committed loving relationship is what God meant it to be. One sexual partner is enough for anyone with normal and emotionally healthy sexual needs. Since we no longer live in the days when people entered into marriages almost as soon as they reached puberty, having more than one sexual partner before one commits oneself to a partner in a marriage may be inevitable, but the number of sexual partners one has before making that commitment is no reflection of creativity.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
My comment to those who are saying that the number is too low. ALL sexual statistics on American sexuality, reveal the same truth. The problem is that the younger generation is a huge pool of sluts. Sorry but it is the truth. Look as divorce statistics as well. It is what it is. Like it or not.
Hey Doctor, you wrote:
"Little by little, the American public is becoming aware that providing teens with a small amount of accurate sexual information seldom leads to avoiding sexual contact. Communities around the country are saying "no" to "Just Say No" as a reliable way to deter the initiation of sexual activity with a partner during the teen years."
This is a very unclear passage and leads me to believe that you are yourself confused or at best, ambivalent, as to what you are advocating or is it condeming???
You can use the word "slut" if you prefer to label, however, the correct terminology is really promiscuous. I guess it depends on your religious background whether or not having multiple sexual partners seems wrong, thus calling the younger generation a bunch of sluts. I personally think it doesn't matter what generation you are from, you are going to hear stories of very promiscuous people.
As far as the divorce rate goes, I don't think it has only to do with promiscuity, although promiscuity is a contributing factor. People today are more concerned with finding the right person to grow with throughout their lives. People change and if your partner is unwilling or incapable of changing with you, the question becomes moreso whether we want to continue to be held back throughout our lives or do we want to continue to experience new things in our lives? Honestly! Leave the amount of sexual partners we had in our youths out of it, it really has nothing to do with that.
I would consider myself very creative. My career choices would bear this out - as would my disdain for the word "career" ;-)
My wife and I are ethically non-monogamous and have had a large numbers of sexual partners - our numbers since marrying eclipsing the numbers prior to marriage. I think the desire within creative people for "experiences" rather than achievements probably accounts for our openness to sensuality.
From my own and my friend's experiences, I think the number of 7 sexual partners in a lifetime is far too low.
I'm a lifetime single, sexually active 70 y.o. male and often have 3 or 4 partners in a year's time.
One: I'll bet the catholic church would like to bash the "alledged" predatory Priests who just caused the (latest) Bankruptcy last week of the San Diego Catholic Diasis.(sp.)
Two: Defending permiscuous people by calling them "creative" when they lack Self-respect,respect of others and class(talk about predatory!...a social taboo...) only adds to their immaturity/ lack of self- control...and to MY endlessly sad job security, reporting the STD's that their condoms don't protect against.
I wouldn't call the people priests have sex with "partners"... "victim" seems appropriate in most cases, though the priests themselves are victims of twisted Catholic teachings about sex.
Post a Comment